Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 22 - AT - Service TaxLiability of service tax - expenses incurred by the appellants which is claimed as reimbursable expenditure from their principal during the course of providing C&F Agents Service - Held that: - actual reimbursable expenditure incurred by the C&F Agents on behalf of the principal under a contractual arrangement is not to be included in the taxable value at the hands of C&F Agents. The condition for such exclusion is that the expenditure should be on behalf of the principal and it should be as per a pre-arrangement and payment should be on actual basis only, as submitted by the department - In the present case, the appellants are pleading for fulfillment of these conditions. As such, there is no justification to include such actual reimbursable expenditure in the taxable value at the hands of the appellants. Liability of service tax - GTA Service for goods transported by the principal to the premises managed by the appellant - Held that: - the freight is paid by PEIL through their agent (i.e., appellants) for transportation of such goods. In such a situation, it is PEIL, who is liable to pay the freight, is apparently liable to pay service tax. The appellants cannot be considered as a ‘Consignor' or ‘Consignee' of the goods as they are acting only as an agent in the transaction of PEIL, who are manufacturing and selling the goods. In such a situation, provisions of section 2(1)(d)(v) will not apply to the appellants in the present case. Delayed payment of service tax - short-payment of service tax with intention for evasion - Held that: - There is no misrepresentation or suppression by the appellants as they have not filed any statutory return covering this period, as the same is due only in Apr.'08. Delay in payment of service tax beyond the period as mentioned in Service Tax Rules, 1994 will attract interest. In the absence of any intentional violation, penalty under section 78 on such delay alone will not be justified. If at all, a penalty under section 76 my have application, which, in any case, has not been imposed in the present case. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|